Data valuation is a cornerstone of data-centric learning, where prior efforts primarily focus on designing algorithms to classify training samples as either beneficial or detrimental for the learning task. However, leveraging these valuation estimates for subsequent data intervention remains underexplored; conventional approaches typically discard or downweight harmful samples, thereby underutilizing available data resources. In this paper, we present Dynamic Influence-based Valuation and Editing (DIVE), a novel and efficient framework that dynamically estimates sample values at the batch level and transforms detrimental data into beneficial contributions. Rather than altering the raw data, DIVE operates at the optimization level by strategically reversing the gradient directions of harmful samples during training, ensuring seamless integration with standard learning procedures with minimal overhead. Extensive empirical evaluations demonstrate that DIVE consistently improves classification performance, maximizes data efficiency, stabilizes optimization, and effectively generalizes to large language model fine-tuning.
Dataset distillation (DD) has emerged as a prominent approach in data centric machine learning, aiming to synthesize compact training sets for efficient training by compressing the information in large datasets into a small number of synthetic samples. However, DD methods are often evaluated under inconsistent evaluation protocols, ranging from standard ERM to single/multi-teacher supervision, making it difficult to isolate the effectiveness of distilled data from evaluation. Moreover, many prior methods claim that DD outperforms data pruning approaches such as coreset selection (CS), based on the assumption that restricting condensed datasets to subsets of real samples fundamentally limits their expressiveness. In this work, we critically evaluate DD methods through large-scale experiments using standardized datasets and evaluation protocols to assess their intrinsic effectiveness. We benchmark seven state-of-the-art (SOTA) DD methods on ImageNet-1K, ImageNet100, and ImageNette, using three widely adopted training protocols against three CS strategies. Our results show that while some DD methods fail to outperform even simple random subsets, the SOTA DD approaches are comparable to or worse than coresets on large-scale datasets and incur a substantially higher cost for construction. Beyond accuracy, we also evaluate the representativeness, diversity, and quality of condensed sets, and find that coresets consistently achieve better coverage of the original data distribution. These findings highlight the limited practical advantages of current DD methods and show that coresets remain competitive and are often a more computationally efficient alternative for data-centric learning.